We’ve often stated that immigration is the beating heart of Univision’s policy agenda, but the network has also taken to championing other liberal policy items. As its coverage of the Supreme Court’s ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra proves, abortion is at the top of that list.
Watch as on both its evening newscast and morning talk show, Univision news anchors completely distorted the significance of yesterday’s ruling, and misrepresented the case itself:
ILIA CALDERÓN, UNIVISION ANCHOR: The Supreme Court ruled today against a California law. The high court determined that faith-based pregnancy centers are not compelled to inform women about family planning services, including abortion. These religious pregnancy centers argued that the law forced them to deliver a message that was in direct conflict with their mission.
SATCHA PRETTO, UNIVISION ANCHOR: The Supreme Court deals a heavy blow to abortion advocates. In a narrow 5 to 4 vote, the high court ruled against a California law that ordered health centers to inform patients about pathways to access low-cost or free procedures for birth control or for the termination of a pregnancy. States such as Hawaii and Illinois have similar legislation.
The anchors’ obfuscation of the facts of this case is deliberate. The locus of California’s action was to compel faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to present abortion as an alternative. But the whole purpose of a faith-based crisis pregnancy center is precisely to prevent an abortion from ever happening. So California was seeking to compel a faith-based organization to say something that ran against its very convictions. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence with the majority opinion clearly says as much:
This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.
And the history of the Act’s passage and its underinclusive application suggest a real possibility that these individuals were targeted because of their beliefs.
As you see in the transcripts, this important fact was deliberately muddied for Univision’s viewers.
Another fact hidden from Univision’s viewers: the Becerra in NIMBLA v. Becerra. California’s radical attorney general was a Univision favorite as a Member of Congress. Since returning home, he has picked up where his predecessor left off, and has aggressively gone after pro-life advocates. For some reason, Univision’s viewers don’t get to see that Becerra is now suing to compel speech that violates the free exercise of one’s religious faith.
Becerra once compared voters to children while appearing on Al Punto as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton.. Perhaps Univision now shares that viewpoint, given how it handled its coverage of this important ruling.